Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Scarborough board delays decision after lengthy debate over Prout's Neck waterfront assessments
Summary
The Scarborough Board of Assessment Review spent its Jan. 21 meeting weighing whether waterfront assessments at Prout's Neck amounted to unlawful discrimination. Members said market evidence was substantial but did not meet the legal threshold for 'manifest error'; the board set Feb. 13 to finalize findings and noted an attorney extension to Feb. 28.
The Scarborough Board of Assessment Review met Jan. 21 to deliberate appeals by property owners represented by Attorney Block and Attorney Dale challenging waterfront assessments in Prout's Neck. Chair opened the hearing and read the board's rules, reminding members that "the assessments ... are presumed valid" and that a taxpayer alleging overvaluation or discrimination must prove the assessment is "manifestly wrong."
Board members spent more than an hour reviewing evidence, with repeated focus on whether the assessor's methods produced a systematic disparity between Prout's Neck and other waterfront properties (including a set of 16 properties near Piper Shores). Member Chris said he had narrowed his review to several recurring points, including the assessor's citywide definition of "waterfront," the distinctiveness of Piper Shores as a comparison area, and the relevance of case law on adjacent-land policy.
Several members discussed the evidentiary weight of recent sales. The panel debated whether the Carver sale — a roughly 40-acre transaction west of Piper Shores that closed after the assessment date — should be discounted. Members said the board should consider sales from April 1, 2005, through April 1, 2012, but give greater weight to the later sales in that period. One summary of exhibits (T4A and T4B) noted three later sales averaged an assessed-value ratio near 79% versus a townwide ratio closer to 100%, while paired-sales comparisons suggested waterfront properties had not uniformly lost value. The board also discussed how to treat private or off-market transactions and whether extreme outlier sales (for example, one sale with a large premium) should be discounted.
Several members said Mr. Leo's in-person testimony — including direct examination, cross-examination and redirect — was persuasive even though a state report was not published. "There wasn't a warranted reason to go further with it," one member summarized, describing the state's view about the unpublished report; others said the testimony supplied the same factual record for deliberation.
On the central legal question, multiple members, including Alex and Kathy, said the appellants had not met the burden to show that the assessor's methodology amounted to intentional or systematic unjust discrimination. Those members described the assessor's revaluation as an attempt to achieve townwide equity and said the evidence presented by appellants did not rise to the statutory threshold for granting an abatement on discrimination grounds.
The board did not take a final vote that night. Staff member Derwood offered to prepare a draft of the board's conclusions and findings for review ahead of the next meeting, with the caution that members must not deliberate by email and should make substantive edits at a public meeting. Attorney Dale submitted a written request for an extension to Feb. 28, 2014; the board acknowledged the request and agreed to reconvene on Thursday, Feb. 13 at 6:30 p.m. to complete findings and vote.
A motion to adjourn carried and the meeting ended with no final determination on the Prout's Neck appeals.
